Session 30 October 2021

tschai

Jedi Council Member
On the topic of seeds, I’ve long pondered how to broach this here on the forum. In my particular case it’s about my wife, who means everything to me. It’s a painful and difficult thing to express. My wife is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known, and I wish so badly that she would go down this path at my side. She has seen all of my books, and knows something of what this is all about. However on this she actually said to me that she was like Cipher in the Matrix, “Just gimme that blue pill! I want that steak even though I know it doesn’t exist!” That’s her Free Will choice, and I have to live with it and respect it. So that is my personal lesson to deal with I suppose. I love her with all my heart, and know that she has a long journey of the soul ahead of her, and I cannot force anything upon her. I have to thread my way between love and detachment. And so I do, one day at a time.

Thanks as always for the session. Each one is like nourishment for my spirit. :flowers:
I often think that a majority of the people we know and love are not on the same path- and so it has been through however many incarnations, except perhaps in rare cases where folks connect with their “soul mate” - we are fated to leave them behind, but eventually however long it takes we may rejoin all of them, so we can take some measure of comfort in that I suppose
 

flashgordonv

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
On the topic of seeds, I’ve long pondered how to broach this here on the forum. In my particular case it’s about my wife, who means everything to me. It’s a painful and difficult thing to express. My wife is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known, and I wish so badly that she would go down this path at my side. She has seen all of my books, and knows something of what this is all about. However on this she actually said to me that she was like Cipher in the Matrix, “Just gimme that blue pill! I want that steak even though I know it doesn’t exist!” That’s her Free Will choice, and I have to live with it and respect it. So that is my personal lesson to deal with I suppose. I love her with all my heart, and know that she has a long journey of the soul ahead of her, and I cannot force anything upon her. I have to thread my way between love and detachment. And so I do, one day at a time.

Thanks as always for the session. Each one is like nourishment for my spirit. :flowers:
I'm in a similar situation. It is quite heart breaking, but you have to accept that they are on a different path and that path is their freewill choice. Not easy to do. These days I have had to become an expert at strategic enclosure and external consideration. That's not easy either.
 

alkhemst

Dagobah Resident
In a word - carefully. Network carefully in your local context. There are many 'human-looking creatures' on the planet that drain energy directly from Souled humans. Especially now. Networking with them can hook you directly into the STS feeding pyramid.
Totally agree, such people are often attracted to whatever group best enable them to “feed”. Good networking in groups would be best to offer protection against that. I get that in a group, like this forum we can and do use the collective knowledge, experience and oversight of the group to identify and limit such people and/or associated behaviours.

It could be that the people you're trying to warn aren't actually asking for your warnings. An STO candidate gives only to those who ask, and gives only what is asked. Trying to advise people who are not ready for the information is like stepping in between them and their karma. And then you get hit by their karma. We can't save anyone here. This lesson is very difficult when it is our close friends and family who are having vaccine-induced strokes, eating wheat, advocating for solar technology, etc.

Another simple answer is to network on the forum here! Ask questions, read interesting threads, make yourself known and available, do your best to contribute in meaningful ways, and in particular share from your heart - your concerns, doubts, and fears. If there are issues in your life, chances are there have been some people here who will be willing to share from the vast wealth of Knowledge that's been gathered over the years.
Sharing in an honest, open and meaningful manner would be facilitated by feeling safe enough to do so. Having protection like mentioned above appears imperative. So if that’s in place, there’s the question about what number of people could be most effective for this. I’d imagine there’s an amount where people are likely spread too thin to manage a group that’s too big. Conversely there’s likely not enough people with knowledge and experience of the Work to support a multitude of small groups. I’m curious about the most effective quantity and structure. In Agile teams that many businesses and tech development use, this number is around 5-9 people. Any larger, the less self organising it is, any smaller the less the required skills and collaboration are available.

This had me thinking of this recent episode of MindMatters with Alan Francis, who is in the midst of attempting to set up a Gurdjieff institute in Spain. Bless his heart, what a time to do it, too!

Francis states a clear progression of the Work, staring with the small and the personal, and expanding outwards from there.

First, one must become a 'conscious egoist' - what this means is that the primary Work is on the self.
Only after a sufficient amount of time spent growing in Being and Knowledge should one consider Working with others. The third step is Work on behalf of humanity - this is on the scale of Gurdjieff's 'Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man', or this forum itself.

As I think about it, a nested council structure such as the one you are describing won't amount to anything real, sustained, and meaningful unless the people involved are Working to grow their Souls. Only then would it be possible to deal with, for instance, attempts at psychopathic takeover, STS interference, or even just the basics of human emotions.

It seems like a given, no matter the size or structure. But say with people dedicated to the Work, and with the right protective make up, is there a structure and size that is more or less effective? It could be precisely this forum structure and size right now.


We have a definite increase in global suffering. I've noticed that people often run to 'community' as a form of compensation - and that's in the best of times. Nowadays in the 'New Normal', many are recently awakened to the fact that the people in power, whom they have relied on most of their lives, are in fact destructive and malevolent. So there is this desperation for an 'alternative structure' that I'm seeing. People feel trapped. But when the motivation is panic, the result is most often chaos.

That's not to say that 'Parallel Structures' (to use Vaclav Havel's term, mentioned in this great video on Mass Psychosis) are impossible or bad to strive for. In fact, they may what allows many people to live through this insanity. But it is a topic that needs patience, research and contemplation.
We live and work together in various networking structures of all kinds. Some are more or less effective for their purposes. I’m reminded of Peterson’s observation about the current global and centralised structures too big not to fail.

A multipolar world of sovereign nations moves away from that centralisation. But I don’t think decentralisation by itself is the answer. The internet (inter- networks) with all kinds of decentralised groups for everything even pedophilia demonstrates it’s not. Without a moral / principled connective foundation and higher aspiration, without enough people progressed enough to protect and mentor others towards that, networking is more like an instrument of entropy.

There may be comparisons from nature to consider distribution of energy. An example is the fractal network informing weight distribution in trees. There are only so many leaves as a cluster that can be supported by the single stem. And there’s only so many clusters of leaves that a single branch can hold. There’s only so many branches a tree trunk at its size can support too etc. The nested council structure as you call it, could be akin to this.
 

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
What about Chlorine Dioxide?

And how were those other protocols developed?

@goyacobol has already given you the links to all the evidence you'll need to see that chlorine dioxide is a dangerous poison.

About your other question - the Protocol that appeared on this forum, mentioned by the C's as effective, was developed through the accumulation of years of objective Knowledge. It's based on an understanding of (1) cellular biology (in particular down-regulating mRNA transcription in the body); (2) helping the immune system, specifically with the supplements and methods that ensure it's in excellent shape; and (3) a more generalized, full-body approach geared towards to the prevention of oxidative stress and inflammation, in service of protecting the DNA and our mitochondria.
 

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I think Amelie understood this segment this way.
26 nov 1994
Q: (T) Okay, when the people are talking about the earth changes, when they talk in literal terms about the survivors, and those who are not going to survive, and the destruction and so forth and so on, in 3rd, 4th, 5th level reality we are not talking about the destruction of the planet on 3rd level physical terms, or the loss of 90 per cent of the population on the 3rd level because they died, but because they are going to move to 4th level?

A: Whoa! You are getting "warm."

Q: (T) Okay. So, we are anchoring this. So, when they talk about 90 per cent of the population not surviving, it is not that they are going to die, but that they are going to transform. We are going to go up a level. This is what the whole light thing is all about?

A: Or another possibility is that the physical cataclysms will occur only for those "left behind" on the remaining 3rd level density earth.

So the C's neither confirmed nor denied that 90% will ascend to 4D.

First they said that the crew was 'getting warm', but this was in response to a very complex question. Their response doesn't indicate that anything in the question is specifically correct, least of all a 90% rate of ascent to 4D.

Second, there was another very complex set of statements, which included the bit about 90% ascent. Their response was to offer 'another possibility'. This might be a nice 6D way of saying 'no'.

I just read more of the session. I'm learning that context is important when reading transcripts. And, surprise surprise - in this session, the C's are discussing the exact issue we are talking about here - how humans often do not correctly interpret the information coming from 6D. We are always jumping to conclusions!

Here it is, bolded points included by Laura from her post:

Q: (L) In terms of these Earth Changes, Edgar Cayce is one of
the most famous prognosticators of recent note, a large
number of the prophecies he made seemingly were erroneous
in terms of their fulfillment. For example, he prophesied
that Atlantis would rise in 1969, but it did not though
certain structures were discovered off the coast of Bimini
which are thought by many to be remnants of Atlantis.
These did, apparently, emerge from the sand at that time.

A: Example of one form of symbolism.

Q: (L) Well, in terms of this symbolism, could this be
applied to the remarks you made about the two little boys
who were missing in South Carolina.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And the symbolism was that you were reading the event
from 3rd density into sixth density terms and then
transmitting it back into 3rd, and while the ideation was
correct, the exact specifics, in 3rd density terms, were
slightly askew.
Is that what we are dealing with here?

A: 99.9 per cent would not understand that concept. Most are
always looking for literal translations of data.
Analogy
is novice who attends art gallery, looks at abstract
painting and says "I don't get it."

Q: (L) Well, let's not denigrate literal translations or at
least attempts to get things into literal terms. I like
realistic art work. I am a realist in my art preferences.
I want trees to look like trees and people to have only
two arms and legs. Therefore, I also like some
literalness in my prognostications.

A: Some is okay, but, beware or else "California falls into
the ocean" will always be interpreted as California
falling into the ocean.


Q: [General uproar] (F) Wait a minute, what was the
question?

(L) I just said I liked literalness in my
prophecies.

(F) Oh, I know what they are saying. People
believe that California is just going to go splat and that
Phoenix is going to be on the seacoast, never mind that
it's at 1800 feet elevation, it's just going to drop down
to sea level, or the sea level is going to rise, but it's
not going to affect Virginia Beach even though that's at
sea level. I mean... somehow Phoenix is just going to
drop down and none of the buildings are going to be
damaged, even though its going to fall 1800 feet...

(T) Slowly. It's going to settle.

(F) Slowly? It would have to be so slowly it's unbelievable how slowly it would have
to be.

(T) It's been settling for the last five million
years, we've got a ways to go in the next year and a half!

(F) Right! That's my point.

(T) In other words, when
people like Scallion and Sun Bear and others say
California is going to fall into the ocean, they are not
saying that the whole state, right along the border is
going to fall into the ocean, they are using the term
California to indicate that the ocean ledge along the
fault line has a probability of breaking off and sinking
on the water side, because it is a major fracture. We
understand that that is not literal. Are you telling us
that there is more involved here as far as the way we are
hearing what these predictions say?


A: Yes.

Q: (T) Are we understanding what you are saying?

A: Some.

Q: (T) So, when we talk about California falling into the
ocean, we are not talking about the whole state literally
falling into the ocean?

A: In any case, even if it does, how long will it take to do
this?

Q: (LM) It could take three minutes or three hundred years.
(T) Yes. That is "open" as you would say.

A: Yes. But most of your prophets think it is not open.

Q: (J) Yeah, because they think they have the only line on
it. (T) Okay. So they are thinking in the terms that one
minute California will be there and a minute and a half
later it will be all gone. Is this what you are saying?

A: Or similar.

Q: (T) So, when we are talking: "California will fall into
the ocean, which is just the analogy we are using, we are
talking about, as far as earth changes, is the possibility
that several seismic events along the fault line, which no
one really knows the extent of...

A: Or it all may be symbolic of something else.

Q: (L) Such as? (J) All the fruitcakes in California are all
going to go off the deep end together. (L) Symbolic of
what?


A: Up to you to examine and learn.

Q: (L) Now, wait a minute here! That's like sending us out
to translate a book in Latin without even giving us a
Latin dictionary.

A: No it is not. We asked you to consider a reexamination.

Q: (L) You have told us through this source, that there is a
cluster of comets connected in some interactive way with
our solar system, and that this cluster of comets comes
into the plane of the ecliptic every 3600 years. Is this
correct?

A: Yes. But, this time it is riding realm border wave to 4th
level, where all realities are different.


Q: (L) Okay, so the cluster of comets is riding the realm
border wave. Does this mean that when it comes into the
solar system, that its effect on the solar system, or the
planets within the solar system, (Jan or us), may or may
not be mitigated by the fact of this transition? Is this
a mitigating factor?

A: Will be mitigated.
...
Q: (L) Does any of this mean that the earth changes that have
been predicted, may not, in fact, occur in physical
reality as we understand it?


A: You betcha.

Q: (L) Does this mean that all of this running around and
hopping and jumping to go here and go there and do this
and do that is...

A: That is strictly 3rd level thinking.

Q: (L) Now, if that is 3rd level thinking, and if a lot of
these things are symbolic, I am assuming they are symbolic
of movement or changes in energy.


A: Yes.

Q: (L) And, if these changes in energy occur does this mean
that the population of the planet are, perhaps, in groups
or special masses of groups, are they defined as the
energies that are changing in these descriptions of events
and happenings of great cataclysm. Is it like a cataclysm
of the soul on an individual and or collective basis?

A: Close.

Q: (L) When the energy changes to 4th density, and you have
already told us that people who are moving to 4th density
when the transition occurs, that they will move into 4th
density, go through some kind of rejuvenation process,
grow new teeth, or whatever, what happens to those people
who are not moving to 4th density, and who
are totally unaware of it? Are they taken along on the
wave by, in other words, piggy-backed by the ones who are
aware and already changing in frequency, or are they going
to be somewhere else doing something else?

A: Step by step.

Q: (T) In other words, we are looking at the fact that what's
coming this time is a wave that's going to allow the human
race to move to 4th density?


A: And the planet and your entire sector of space/time.

Q: (T) Is that what this whole plan is about, then, if I may
be so bold as to include all of us here in this. We, of
the beings of light who have come here into human form, to
anchor the frequency, is this what we are anchoring it
for, for this wave, so that when it comes enough of us
will be ready, the frequency will be set, so that the
change in the planet can take place as it has been
planned?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) When this happens, will we piggy-back all those who
are still unaware?

A: Open.

Q: (T) Okay, when the people are talking about the earth
changes, when they talk in literal terms about the
survivors, and those who are not going to survive, and the
destruction and so forth and so on, in 3rd, 4th, 5th level
reality we are not talking about the destruction of the
planet on 3rd level physical terms, or the loss of 90 per
cent of the population on the 3rd level because they died,
but because they are going to move to 4th level?

A: Whoa! You are getting "warm."

Q: (T) Okay. So, we are anchoring this. So, when they talk
about 90 per cent of the population not surviving, it is
not that they are going to die, but that they are going to
transform. We are going to go up a level. This is what
the whole light thing is all about?

A: Or another possibility is that the physical cataclysms
will occur only for those "left behind" on the remaining
3rd level density earth.


Q: (T) Okay, what you are saying, then, is that we are
anchoring the frequency, so that when the wave comes, we
move to 4th level density as many people as possible, in
order to break the hold the "Dark T-shirts" have got on
this planet, those who remain behind will not have enough
energy left for the "Dark T-shirts" to bother with the
planet any longer. There will be less of them so the
planet will be able to refresh and they will be able to
move on in their lessons without interference?

A: Close.

Q: (L) At this point of dimensional transition, is what we
are doing, anchoring a frequency, are we creating a sort
of "super string" network that will literally create
another earth in 4th density, which will then exist in 4th
density, and the old 3rd density earth -- almost like the
splitting of a one celled organism, only in this splitting
one half of it moves into another dimension and is
energized and quite literally created by the anchoring
frequency, while the old one remains and experiences 3rd
density reality?

A: Step by step.

Q: (L) Are we anchoring frequency to create a split?

A: One developing conduit.

Q: (L) We are developing a conduit?

A: Yes. One.

Q: (J) How many conduits do we need?

A: Open.

Q: (T) Is this conduit going to allow those who remain behind
to be able to move to 4th density easier when they are
ready?

A: No.

Q: (T) What is the conduit for?

A: You and those who will follow you.

Q: (T) Oh, this is for those of us who will move to 4th
density. We will move through and they will follow us
through the conduit. (J) Oh, others who are ready?

A: Your group here tonight.

Q: (L) Does this mean we will have followers or just us here
now?

A: Open. Up to you.

Q: (L) This conduit. Is this a conduit through which an
entire planet will transition?

A: You are one. There are others.

Q: (L) There are other planets...

A: No. Conduit.

Q: We are one conduit and there are conduits...

A: No. Developing at this point.

Q: (J) So, at this point we are developing a conduit?
A: Yes.

Q: (T) There are other groups on this planet developing their
own conduits?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) These are conduits for us to move to 4th density in?

A: Knowledge is the key to developing a conduit.

...

Q: (T) Is the conduit kind of like an escape hatch for us?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Let me get this straight. When we move through this
conduit, are the other...

A: You will be on the 4th level earth as opposed to 3rd level
earth.

Q: (L) What I am trying to get here, once again, old
practical Laura, is trying to get a handle on practical
terms here. Does this mean that a 4th density earth and a
3rd density earth will coexist side by side...

A: Not side by side, totally different realms.

Q: (L) Do these realms interpenetrate one another but in
different dimensions...

A: Close.

Q: (L) So, in other words, a being from say, 6th density,
could look at this planet we call the earth and see it
spinning through space and see several dimensions of
earth, and yet the point of space/time occupation is the
same, in other words, simultaneous. (J) They can look
down but we can't look up.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, in other words, while all of this cataclysmic
activity is happening on the 3rd dimensional earth, we
will be just on our 4th dimensional earth and this sort of
thing won't be there, and we won't see the 3rd dimensional
people and they won't see us because we will be in
different densities which are not "en rapport", so to
speak?

A: You understand concept, now you must decide if it is
factual.
 
If you read that thread there are 3 hits on Chlorine Dioxide. The search function will help you answer those kinds of questions.

Search results for query: Chlorine Dioxide
Thank you. Didn't realize that you meant to read the entire thread. My bad. So I did search the thread and unless I am missing something the big hit on chlorine dioxide was the lack of clinical studes. I would agree with that in part, but was also wondering the same about the other protocols that were suggested.

Even "clinical studies" rely on assumptions in process, measurement error, interpretation, etc. So in the end, we are left with our own experience, understanding, etc. (and that of others we feel inclined to trust). Those who still use indigenous practices have been maligned for more than a century, even though some of it seems work.
 
Last edited:

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Thank you. Didn't realize that you meant to read the entire thread. My bad. So I did search the thread and unless I am missing something the big hit on chlorine dioxide was the lack of clinical studes. I would agree with that in part, but was also wondering the same about the other protocols that were suggested.

Even "clinical studies" rely on assumptions in process, measurement error, interpretation, etc. So in the end, we are left with our own experience, understanding, etc. (and that of others we feel inclined to trust). Those who still use indigenous practices have been maligned for more than a century, even though some of it seems work.

What you're missing is that chlorine dioxide is bleach. See the articles below for more info.



 
Not understanding you IAMTHATIS.

When you say that Chlorine Dioxide is bleach, do you mean that Chlorine Dioxide is Sodium Hypochlorite?
I was only asking a question about the protocols that were suggested and one other protocol that I didn't see.

I was not asking for a lecture on Chlorine Dioxide and goyacobol showed me where that thought was coming from. I read the inital posting without reading the thread and from that alone I thought that chlorine dioxide was an alleged protocol that seemed to be missing.

But since it seems to have gone this direction, please provide more REAL data about chlorine dioxide.
 

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Not understanding you IAMTHATIS.

When you say that Chlorine Dioxide is bleach, do you mean that Chlorine Dioxide is Sodium Hypochlorite?
I was only asking a question about the protocols that were suggested and one other protocol that I didn't see.

I was not asking for a lecture on Chlorine Dioxide and goyacobol showed me where that thought was coming from. I read the inital posting without reading the thread and from that alone I thought that chlorine dioxide was an alleged protocol that seemed to be missing.

But since it seems to have gone this direction, please provide more REAL data about chlorine dioxide.

Chlorine dioxide is indeed an 'alleged' protocol, and it is missing on this forum for a reason - it is poison.

And I did provide real data - I recommend you read this article below.

 
Is it bleach? (Sodium Hypochlorite). That article is over 10 years old and has many problems.

And again, what do the other protocols really know about Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine etc.? How much data exists and how was that data obtained and presented? That was really the crux of the queston I asked.
 
Last edited:

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Is it bleach? (Sodium Hypochlorite). That article is over 10 years old and has many problems.

This is a research forum, not an opinion forum. If you can provide a clear and concise refutation of the article's 'many problems' with new data, then please do so. If you are just giving a personal opinion, however, you're in the wrong bar.

And again, what do the other protocols really know about Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine etc.? How much data exists and how was that data obtained and presented? That was really the crux of the queston I asked.

See if you can answer your own question. I suggest you use the forum search function. You'll find all the information you'll ever need about Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc.
 
I thought I was asking for the research on the other protocols.

Amount, dosage, symptoms, research data.

I am not promoting chlorine dioxide. Just didn't think that the post provided anything to suggest that the listed protocols had anything more promising than the unlisted ones.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom